5.  The applicant was born in 1989 and lives in Dubrovnik.
6.  On 17 April 2003 at around 5.50 p.m., the applicant telephoned the Dubrovnik Police Station (Policijska postaja Dubrovnik) alleging that he had been attacked and beaten by an unknown man. Two police officers were immediately sent to the scene.
7.  The police officers interviewed the applicant, who was a boy of thirteen at the time, in the presence of his mother, L.R. The applicant stated that he had been playing in the playground of the Marin Držić Primary School (Osnovna škola Marina Držića) with his friends D.D., D.B. and H.K. with a ball he had found there. At some point another boy had come and asked for the ball, saying that it had been his, but the applicant had not believed him and had refused to return it. Soon after, the boy’s father had come, grabbed the applicant’s t-shirt, and kicked and hit him on the back and head. The man had then taken the ball and left.
8.  The police established the identity of the man as I.Š.
9.  At around 7.00 p.m. on the same date the police interviewed I.Š., who denied that he had physically attacked the applicant. I.Š. stated that he had only grabbed the applicant’s t-shirt in order to take the ball. He had also shouted but had not used any physical force.
10.  At 8.15 p.m. the same day the applicant was seen by a doctor in the Dubrovnik Health Centre (Dom zdravlja Dubrovnik), who drew up a report on the injuries sustained by the applicant. The relevant part of the report reads:
 “According to the person escorting the injured person (his father), [the injured person] was attacked by a man because that man thought that he had taken a ball from his son; [the man] slapped him and kicked him four to five times on the body; which all happened around 6 p.m. in the playground of the Marin Držić Primary School.
Diagnosis: bruising on the left cheek, bruising on the left lumbar region and around the spleen.”
The injuries were qualified as lesser bodily injuries.
11.  On 6 May 2003 the Dubrovnik Police Station asked the Dubrovnik Minor Offences Court (Prekršajni sud u Dubrovniku) to institute minor offence proceedings against I.Š. on charges of disturbing the public peace and order.
12.  On 9 June 2003 the applicant’s father informed the Dubrovnik Minor Offences Court that he had orally requested information about the case but had been denied any information. On the same date the Dubrovnik Minor Offences Court informed the applicant’s father that he could consult the case file and copy documents thereby.
13.  Hearings were held on 14 and 16 June 2004.
14.  On 7 April 2005 the Dubrovnik Minor Offences Court discontinued the proceedings against I.Š. on the ground that the prosecution had become time-barred.
15.  On 9 June 2003 the applicant’s father lodged a complaint with the Dubrovnik Municipal State Attorney’s Office (Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u Dubrovniku) against I.Š., claiming that he had physically attacked the applicant and had threatened him. On 30 June and 28 August 2003 the Dubrovnik Municipal State Attorney’s Office asked the Dubrovnik Police to investigate these allegations.
16.  The police interviewed the applicant’s father, the alleged assailant I.Š., and witnesses V.D., D.D., D.L.B., H.K. and D.Č. and obtained relevant medical documentation concerning the applicant. On 7 July, 11 July and 12 September 2003 respectively, the records of interviews and other documents were forwarded to the Dubrovnik Municipal State Attorney’s Office.
17.  In their statements to the police, D.D., D.L.B. and H.K. confirmed the applicant’s version of events. The relevant part of the record of D.D.’s interview reads:
“... they had been sitting near an olive tree and Tomislav had found a ball which Š. (son of I.) had been looking for in the playground.
Then a bearded man had jumped over a wall of the playground and stood in front of them asking who Tomi was. When Tomislav had answered, that man had attempted to catch him. He had then grabbed his t-shirt and slapped Tomislav twice and also kicked him twice in the hip area. After that, he had shouted at Tomislav and told him that he would beat him again if he ever went near his son again.”
In his interview with the police D.L.B. stated:
   “Around 5.30 p.m. a man who had come to the playground had approached them and asked who “Tomi” was. When Tomislav had answered, that man had hit him on the head with a ball he had found there (Tomislav had had his head covered with his hands at the time). After that he had grabbed [Tomislav’s] t-shirt and then kicked him in the area of his hips and then slapped him. The man had also threatened Tomislav, [telling him that he was] not to go near his children ...”
The relevant part of the record of the interview with H.K. reads:
“... he was together with Tomislav and D.D. in the playground when a bearded man had approached them and asked for Tomislav. When Tomislav had answered, the man had grabbed his t-shirt and slapped him and after that kicked him twice in the hip area.
... the man had also shouted at Tomislav and threatened that he would beat him again if he touched his son.”
18.  On 12 December 2003 the Dubrovnik Municipal State Attorney’s Office indicted I.Š. in the Dubrovnik Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Dubrovniku) on charges of violent behaviour. The relevant part of the indictment reads:
“... in the playground of the Marin Držić Primary School, without any provocation, after he had approached Tomislav Remetin, who was there with his friends H.K., D.D. and D.B.L., in their presence and in the presence of other passers-by, [he] grabbed [Tomislav Remetin’s] t-shirt and kicked him twice on the back and then slapped him, threatening him not to go near his son,
therefore, [he] degraded another person by subjecting them to violent abuse in public ...”
19.  The Dubrovnik Municipal State Attorney’s Office asked that the applicant, H.K., D.D. and D.L.B. be called as prosecution witnesses and that the relevant medical documentation be examined.
20.  At a hearing held on 14 June 2006 I.Š. gave evidence. He reiterated that he had not used any physical force against the applicant and refused to answer any questions put to him by either the judge conducting the proceedings or the parties.
21.  At a hearing held on 8 September 2006 the applicant gave evidence. The relevant part of his statement reads:
“While we were playing I heard that somebody, who was approaching me from behind, asked for Tomislav Remetin and one of my friends pointed at me. As that man was already really close to me, he grabbed my t-shirt in the area of my left shoulder towards my chest. I was already a bit turned towards him so he grabbed me with both hands and started shaking me, saying that he would kill me if I ever went near his son. I think he was also saying something else but I don’t remember now. Now I remember that he was saying something like I had pierced his son’s ball. I managed to get rid of his hold somehow, but while we were still close to each other, he kicked me a couple of times on my body somewhere in the area of my stomach, ribs and back. So, he kicked me on the rear side of the body and slapped me in the head two to three times.”
22.  After the examination of the applicant, the Deputy State Attorney reiterated his proposal that H.K., D.D. and D.L.B. be called as prosecution witnesses. The applicant’s father asked to be heard as a witness for the prosecution in addition to the applicant’s grandmother, who he stated had relevant knowledge about the medical treatment of the applicant. The defence lawyer asked that I.Š.’s children be called as defence witnesses. The judge conducting the proceedings dismissed all of the requests to call witnesses and concluded the proceedings, holding that all relevant facts had been sufficiently established.
23.  In his final address to the court, the Deputy State Attorney abandoned the prosecution of I.Š. on the ground that there was insufficient evidence against him. The relevant part of the record of the Deputy State Attorney’s address reads:
“Namely, I consider that during the proceedings, with particular emphasis on today’s oral evidence given by the injured party Tomislav Remetin, there is insufficient evidence to, in my view, prove the substantive elements of the offence of violent behaviour under Article 331 of the Criminal Code.
...
And so, I do not consider that the acts of the accused amount to any other criminal offence liable to public prosecution.”
24.  The applicant’s father stated that he was taking over the prosecution as a subsidiary prosecutor on behalf of the applicant and requested the adjournment of the trial in order to prepare to conduct the prosecution. The judge conducting the proceedings adjourned the trial and ordered the applicant’s father to submit an indictment within eight days.
25.  On 15 September 2006 the applicant’s father lodged an indictment with the Dubrovnik Municipal Court against I.Š. on charges of violent behaviour, inflicting bodily injury, making serious threats and verbal insult. He also lodged a claim for damages (imovinskopravni zahtjev) against I.Š., seeking 10,000 Croatian kunas (HRK).
26.  On 19 September 2006 the applicant’s father asked the Dubrovnik Municipal Court to grant him legal aid, claiming that he did not have sufficient knowledge to prosecute the case himself and that he did not have sufficient means to afford legal representation.
27.  On the same date the applicant’s father complained to the Dubrovnik County State Attorney’s Office (Županijsko državno odvjetništvo u Dubrovniku) that the Dubrovnik Municipal State Attorney’s Office had dismissed all of the charges against I.Š. without any witnesses being heard.
28.  On 3 October 2006 the Dubrovnik Municipal Court dismissed the applicant’s father’s request for legal aid on the grounds that applicable domestic law did not provide for legal aid in respect of the private prosecution of the offences for which I.Š. had been indicted.
29.  On 8 January 2007 the applicant’s father lodged an amended indictment with the Dubrovnik Municipal Court against I.Š. on charges of violent behaviour, inflicting bodily injury, serious threats, verbal insult and ill-treatment of a child or a minor. He also amended the claim for damages, increasing the award sought to HRK 90,000.
30.  On 12 January 2007 the Dubrovnik Municipal Court held a hearing at which I.Š. pleaded not guilty. The applicant’s father asked that H.K., D.D. and D.L.B. be called as prosecution witnesses in addition to the applicant’s grandmother and mother, who he submitted also had relevant knowledge of the event. The judge conducting the proceedings dismissed his request to call the witnesses and concluded the proceedings.
31.  On 12 January 2007 the Dubrovnik Municipal Court acquitted I.Š. of the charges of violent behaviour. The relevant part of the judgment reads:
“Namely, by its nature, the offence under Article 331 of the Criminal Code (violent behaviour) is unprovoked conduct by a perpetrator which manifests itself in violent abuse, and the very intent to violently abuse [another person] is the mens rea of this offence.
Contrary to this, this juvenile court, based on the statements of the aggrieved party, the minor Tomislav Remetin, and the accused, I.Š., which are mutually compatible in substance, namely, [they are] compatible in that they both speak about the children or about the ball and the child of the accused, can see provocation for the ... conduct of the accused, I.Š.”
32.  The Dubrovnik Municipal Court also discontinued the proceedings in respect of the charges of inflicting bodily injuries and making serious threats on the grounds that the prosecution for these offences had become time-barred because the applicant’s father had not lodged his indictment within the statutory limitation period set by applicable domestic law. The charges of verbal insult were not examined separately, as the Dubrovnik Municipal Court found that that offence had not been described in the body of the indictment. The Dubrovnik Municipal Court also instructed the applicant that his civil claim could be pursued in separate civil proceedings.
33.  On 31 January 2007 the applicant’s father lodged an appeal with the Dubrovnik County Court against the first-instance judgment, claiming that the Dubrovnik Municipal Court had erred in its factual findings and in the application of substantive and procedural law.
34.  On 11 March 2008 the Dubrovnik County Court upheld the part of the judgment of the Dubrovnik Municipal Court by which I.Š. had been acquitted of the charges of violent behaviour, quashed the part of that judgment discontinuing the proceedings as regards the charges of inflicting bodily injury and making serious threats and ordered a retrial in respect of those charges. The County Court found that the statutory limitation period had stopped running when the Dubrovnik Municipal State Attorney’s Office had lodged the indictment against I.Š. with the Dubrovnik Municipal Court and not when the indictment had been lodged by the applicant as subsidiary prosecutor.
35.  On 22 April 2008 the Dubrovnik County State Attorney’s Office instructed the Dubrovnik Municipal State Attorney’s Office to take over the prosecution of I.Š. before the Dubrovnik Municipal Court on charges of making serious threats.
36.  On 8 May 2008 the Dubrovnik Municipal State Attorney’s Office informed the Dubrovnik Municipal Court that it was taking over the prosecution of I.Š. on charges of making serious threats as indicted by the applicant’s father as subsidiary prosecutor.
37.  On 8 July 2008 the applicant’s father submitted an application to the Dubrovnik Municipal Court to expedite the proceedings.
38.  At a hearing on 11 December 2008 the Deputy State Attorney amended the indictment against I.Š. The relevant part reads:
“On 17 April 2003, at around 5.20 p.m., near no. 6 Voltina Street, Dubrovnik, in the playground of the Marin Držić Primary School, after a physical conflict he had with Tomislav Remetin, with the intent of creating fear and anxiety, [he] told [Tomislav Remetin] that he was going to kill him if he ever went near his son again, which made Tomislav Remetin fear for his personal safety,
therefore, [he] made a serious threat to another person that he would kill him ...” I.Š. pleaded not guilty and the applicant reiterated his previous statement. Witness H.K. gave evidence. The relevant part of the record of his statement reads:
   “On that day, I was with the injured party, D.D. and D.L.B. in the playground of the Marin Držić Primary School. We were playing around the school and at one point the accused came over. He asked for Tomislav Remetin and after that they had an argument over his son’s ball. The accused was shouting at Tomislav and after that he slapped him twice and I also saw that he kicked him in the liver or thereabouts but I don’t know which leg exactly or which side of the body he kicked Tomislav on.”
39.  Another hearing was held on 30 December 2008 at which witnesses D.D. and D.L.B. gave their evidence. Witness D.L.B. stated:
“On that day Tomislav Remetin, H.K., D.D. and I, were playing in front of the Marin Držić Primary School. At one point I saw the accused jumping over a wall and then he asked for Tomislav Remetin. When Tomi responded, the accused hit him with a ball and then he started to beat him. I remember that he kicked him in the stomach area and after that he hit him on the head. He also started threatening him, [saying] “we will see”, and he was mentioning his sons.”
Witness D.D. testified:
“On that day I was sitting near an olive tree in the school’s playground and I saw the accused jumping over a wall and going towards Tomislav. I saw that he kicked [Tomislav] and slapped him twice. After that, he threatened that he would beat him if he ever went near his son ...”
After examination of the witnesses, the judge conducting the proceedings dismissed all proposals for the examination of other witnesses and concluded the trial.
40.  On 30 December 2008 the Dubrovnik Municipal Court discontinued the proceedings against I.Š. on charges of violent behaviour, inflicting bodily injuries, making serious threats, defamation and ill-treatment of a child or a minor on the grounds that the accused had already been acquitted by a final judgment for the same facts under a different legal qualification. It also instructed the applicant that he could pursue his civil claim in separate civil proceedings.
41.  On 9 January 2009 the applicant lodged a complaint about the length of the proceedings with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) which was forwarded to the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) for examination. The applicant complained that the proceedings before the Dubrovnik Municipal Court and the Dubrovnik County Court had lasted for an excessively long time and that there was a possibility that the proceedings would become time-barred.
42.  On 20 January 2009 the Dubrovnik Municipal State Attorney’s Office lodged an appeal with the Dubrovnik County Court against the first‑instance judgment. On 23 January 2009 the applicant’s father also lodged an appeal.
43.  On 9 April 2009 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint about the length of the proceedings before the Dubrovnik Municipal Court and the Dubrovnik County Court as ill-founded. The Supreme Court found that the relevant period to be taken into account started on 15 September 2006 when the applicant lodged his claim for damages in the criminal proceedings and that the proceedings had therefore lasted for two years, six months and twenty-five days, which was not considered as excessively long.
44.  On 5 March 2009 the Dubrovnik County Court quashed the judgment of the Dubrovnik Municipal Court and ordered a retrial. The County Court found that the judgment of the Dubrovnik Municipal Court had procedural defects since it referred to the charges of violent behaviour which had been finally adjudicated and thus not susceptible to any further examination or decision.
45.  At a hearing on 6 April 2009 the Dubrovnik Municipal Court discontinued the proceedings against I.Š. on charges of inflicting bodily injuries and making serious threats on the grounds that I.Š. had already been acquitted by a final judgment for the same facts under a different legal qualification. The applicant was instructed that he could pursue his civil claim in separate civil proceedings.
46.  On 6 April 2009 the Dubrovnik Municipal State Attorney’s Office lodged an appeal with the Dubrovnik County Court. On 7 April 2009 the applicant’s father also lodged an appeal.
47.  On 28 May 2009 the Dubrovnik County Court discontinued the proceedings on the grounds that the prosecution had become time-barred on 17 April 2009.
48.  On 9 June 2009 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court against the decision of the Supreme Court by which his complaint about the length of the proceedings had been dismissed. This complaint was forwarded to a three judge appeal panel of the Supreme Court.
49.  On 2 July 2009 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court against the judgment of the Dubrovnik County Court complaining about the manner in which the provisions of the criminal law had been applied in connection with a violent attack against him.
50.  On 26 November 2009 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s constitutional complaint inadmissible on the grounds that the proceedings in issue had not concerned any of his civil rights or obligations or any criminal charge against him.
51.  On 20 October 2010 a three judge appeal panel of the Supreme Court declared the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Supreme Court in respect of the length of the proceedings inadmissible as having been lodged out of time.
52.  On 26 February 2009 the applicant lodged a civil action in the Dubrovnik Municipal Court against I.Š., claiming compensation for non‑pecuniary damage. The applicant contended that the physical attack by I.Š. had made him feel humiliated and had caused him continuous mental suffering.
53.  On 9 December 2009 the Dubrovnik Municipal Court dismissed the applicant’s civil action on the grounds that it had become time-barred. The Municipal Court found that the applicant had lodged his civil action with the court conducting the criminal proceedings on 15 September 2006, which was out of the statutory limitation period set by applicable domestic law. This period could only have been extended if criminal responsibility had been established, which was not the case in respect of the applicant’s claim as the proceedings against I.Š. had been discontinued by the Dubrovnik County Court.
54.  On 25 January 2010 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Dubrovnik County Court, complaining that the Dubrovnik Municipal Court had erred in the application of applicable substantive and procedural law.
55.  On 24 May 2011 the Dubrovnik County Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment on the grounds that the applicant’s civil action had become time-barred.
56.  On 26 September 2011 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court against the judgment of the Dubrovnik County Court. It appears that the proceedings before the Constitutional Court are still pending.